<html>
<body>
At 15:57 31/08/2013, David Conrad wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Aug 31, 2013, at 6:09 AM, JFC
Morfin <<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Don't you think routing may have
to do with details like architecture, RFCs, addressing plan, IP
allocation, RIR strategies?</blockquote><br>
Sure.</blockquote><br>
OK. Are you sure they are 100% politically proof?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Why is there only one source of
IPv6 addresses, when ITU had expressed the interest in managing its own
IPv6 adressing plan?<br>
Why has Civil Society never been proposed to manage its own IPv6
adressing plan?</blockquote><br>
Because the usefulness of IPv6 addresses (like IPv4 addresses) is
constrained by network topology, not politics or whether they feel good,
thus for the Internet to actually scale, you need them to be allocated by
service providers, not politicians?</blockquote><br>
Please, let not reciprocally pull our legs :-) - where to you take that
Stakeholders are only made of "politicians"? This is exactly
the opposite of my position. <br><br>
Your
<a href="http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad" eudora="autourl">
http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad</a> gives some (not recent)
but clear links about the political dependance of the governance of the
IANA. I particularly like now your affirmation (I share in part) of the
need for the Internet to scale that IPs are allocated by ISPs. <br><br>
However, I am not sure what RIRs, NRO, ICANN and the USGov have already
fully understood and accepted that subsidiarity. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Why is this that RIRs have been
the first to endorse OpenStand RFC 6852
<a href="http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/" eudora="autourl">
http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/</a>?</blockquote><br>
Because they agreed with the document?</blockquote><br>
I do hope so!!!<br><br>
Look, you are no more the IANA head, paid by ICANN and ultimately
reporting to the USGov as you described the things at that time. Here,
you are supposed to help the Civil Society members understand how the
other stakeholders, as you learned them, see the common world, and
therefore how we can jointly uncover a deeper consensus than the apparent
oppositions.<br><br>
OpenStand is a strategy of business take-over of the internet. I think it
is a good move, however incomplete. It is a good move because it is
consistent with the statUS-quo reality, and as such it is efficient. It
does compact the standardization and the operational tools of the
internet. <br><br>
However, it is a reaction to the lack of response of the USG to RFC 3869,
to the unreadability of the Civil Society IGF and to the complexity of
the International Organizations system. This unfortunately was necessary
but it makes OpenStand weak, because one cannot rule the world without
the world itself. You know the IANA enough to appreciate that the
digisphere (not the obsoleting internet) cannot scale without an adequate
reference framework open registry system. Today's IANA has a name:
Vint said once that the Internet root file was the most used root file (I
suspect it is the GSMA). The true IANA is its mirror small PRISM sub
registry, or my INTLFILE personal version for decades, or those that
several other (will) maintain(ed), or the one of Google, etc.
etc.<br><br>
Our best common interest is that we may ally OpenStand and OpenUse and
ITU as an interface to UN and Society-States we need to help the
emergence. To do that we need to be candid about everyone strength and
weakness (as they are today, and in respect to the world and to the
digital ecosystem architectonics - we all have to accept that
architectural requirements result from historic/economic/egotistical
choices and are therefore political). Our common interest is not a short
or medium range best policy, our common interest is a sustainable
effilient (efficient and resilient) balance between technologic,
political, architectonical, economic, human long term ambitions for the
common good.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>